PWD2538

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00048853 (CA-00060131-001)

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act,

1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace

Relations Act, 2015. 

The following is the Court's Decision:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Michal Wojtczak against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”).

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded. 

A Labour Court hearing held on 25 September 2025. Michal Wojtczak was assisted at the hearing by a Polish interpreter. The Complainant gave evidence under oath.

For ease, the parties are referred to in this Decision as they were before the Adjudication Officer. Hence, Michal Wojtczak is referred to as ‘the Complainant’ and his former employer, Rentokil Initial Limited, is referred to as ‘the Respondent’.  

The Complainant worked for the respondent company from October 2018 until he resigned his employment effective 29 August 2023.

The Complainant referred his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 20th November 2023 meaning the relevant period in which any alleged contraventions can be considered is 21 May 2023 to 20 November 2023.

The Adjudication Officer adjudicated on three separate alleged contraventions of the Act in relation to unlawful deductions/non-payments at the WRC hearing.  The Complainant confined his appeal at the Labour Court hearing to an alleged failure by the respondent to grant him a pay rise in 2022. 

Summary Position of the Complainant

The Complainant submits that in August 2022 the Respondent informed him by letter that he would not receive a pay increase, as he had failed to successfully complete a mandatory on-line training course.  The Complainant was unable to complete the on-line training due to technical problems with the mobile phone provided to him by the respondent.

The Complainant contends that the failure of the Respondent to grant him a pay rise amounts to a breach of the Act.

Summary Position of the Respondent

The Respondent submits that no contravention of the Act occurred within the relevant statutory timeframe for the within complaint.

The Complainant had no contractual entitlement to a pay increase, as pay increases in the company are awarded on a discretionary basis.

Applicable Law

The Act at Section 5(6) provides as follows:

5(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

Deliberations

To ground a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the Court needs in the first instance to ascertain what wages were properly payable to the Complainant during the relevant period.

Having established that the Court then needs to ascertain whether there was a shortfall in the proper payment and, if that was the case, whether the shortfall arose for one of the reasons set out in section 5(1) above.

Furthermore, as the Complainant lodged his complaint to the WRC on 20 November 2023, the Court’s jurisdiction is confined to assessing alleged contraventions of the Act that occurred in the six-month period prior to that date, which encompasses the period from 21 May 2023 to 20 November 2023.

The Court has no jurisdiction in this case to assess alleged contraventions that occurred prior to 21 May 2023. The Complainant left the employment of the Respondent on 29 August 2023. 

The Complainant gave sworn evidence at the hearing. The Court was provided with a contract of employment setting out the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment. In response question from the Court, the Complainant accepted that no provision in the contract of employment conferred on him a contractual entitlement to receive a pay rise.  The Complainant further accepted that he had no documents or any other evidence to support his assertion that he was contractually entitled to receive a pay increase.

By his own evidence the Complainant has not established that he has a contractual entitlement to the money he claims to be owed.

As a result, the Court finds that the Complainant has failed to make out a case in relation to a contravention of the Act.

In light of that fact, the Court finds that there was no unlawful deduction of the Complainant’s wages during the relevant period for the within complaint and the complaint is not well founded.

Decision

The Court finds that the complaint is not well founded.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
FC	______________________
30 September 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.